LogFAQs > #910507970

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i remember the political debates during the GWB/kerry era. while they may have been slightly less... hysterical and polarized than the present-day political debates, 99% of it was still a bunch of people yelling at each other who 1) weren't experts on whatever they were debating, 2) hadn't read books on whatever they were debating, and 3) were absolutely convinced that they were right about whatever they were debating. how is that not "casual"?

I think you are projecting a bit there. First the discussions werent everywhere. Social media has turned everything into an attack on some sort of values that a group of people hold dear. I get into these types of discussions with my own family all the time, but it was/still is limited to a small audience.

Also I do think people had more informed opinions on things somewhat, because the issues in 2000/2004 (the last reasonable era so far, although I'd say the mid/late 90s was the last era of optimism in the world so far) were more cut and dry in a sense. We were still primarily talking about

economic: how do we get more jobs? Dems had one idea Repubs had another. Both kinda not understanding the problem here imo.

social: the early/mid 00s were basically two social issues being talked about nonstop. Gay rights (which really came down to "euu they icky" vs "uh, just don't have gay/lesbian sex?") and Rowe v Wade (which is still an issue today - its kinda what Kavanaugh was all about tbh). Social issues are a bit more complex now, and tons more social issues have risen into the frontlines (social media being a major, not the only, but major reason why)

foreign: Iraq, what do we do? Were the people lied to? (hint: yes)

The world was a lot less complex even in the immediate after days of 9/11. Hell 9/11 probably simplified things in some ways. Theres a trade off for that too.
---

Casual Revolution 2007 - 2016